On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:45:08PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 20 February 2013 14:19, Mark Brown
> > This doesn't look especially sane... You're doing a runtime get, taking > > the lock without releasing it and disabling the regulator. This is > > *very* odd, both the changelog and the code need to explain what's going > > on and why it's safe in a lot more detail here. > You need to do pm_runtime_get_sync to be able to make sure resources > (which seems to be only the regulator) are safe to switch off. To my > understanding this is a generic way to use for being able to switch > off resources at a device suspend when runtime pm is used in > conjunction. Are you sure this actually does what you think it does, especially when run on modern kernels?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
